Kalshi Seeks Seventh Circuit Review in Ho-Chunk Prediction Market Case

Kalshi has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for permission to appeal in its dispute with the Ho-Chunk Nation, setting up a possible appellate test of how the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act applies to prediction market sports contracts. The Kalshi Seventh Circuit petition, filed on September 21, 2026, is a request for permission under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), and it is docketed as Kalshi Inc. et al. v. Ho-Chunk Nation, No. 26-8020. The petitioners are KalshiEX LLC and Kalshi Inc.; the respondent is the Nation.

As of the docket entries available to us, the filing shows only the petition and an appearance and disclosure statement for the petitioners, with no orders listed. That means the court has not yet decided whether to take the case. The docket does not show on its face what the district judge certified, so this article does not characterize the contents of the petition beyond its statutory basis.

The petition is a procedural step, and it should not be read as a merits ruling for either side. Its significance lies in what it could unlock: a direct appellate statement on whether an IGRA claim of this kind may go forward against a federally regulated exchange.

The ruling Kalshi wants reviewed

The petition grows out of proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. In May, the court declined to dismiss the Ho-Chunk Nation's core IGRA claims, finding that the Nation had sufficiently alleged that Kalshi's online sports event contracts amount to Class III gaming on tribal land, conducted without federal authorization and without compliance with the tribal-state compact. Reporting at the time indicated the court allowed the claims to proceed but did not grant an injunction. Our earlier article on the Ho-Chunk ruling covers that decision in detail.

Ho-Chunk President Jon Greendeer said at the time that the case "is larger than one tribe or one company," a framing that reflects how many tribes are watching. Kalshi and its affiliates have taken the position, in litigation across the country, that its contracts are federally regulated swaps rather than gambling. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has likewise maintained that prediction markets are not gambling. Tribes argue that sports contracts accessible on their lands are gaming under IGRA and require the authorization and compact compliance the statute demands.

Why the 1292(b) route matters

Ordinarily, a party cannot appeal until a case ends in a final judgment. Section 1292(b) creates a narrow exception: a district judge may certify that an order involves a controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The party then has ten days to ask the court of appeals for permission, and the court of appeals has discretion to say no. Our explainer on how appeals work in tribal gaming cases walks through the process.

The practical effect of a grant would be an appellate ruling years earlier than a final judgment would produce. For the Ho-Chunk Nation, that cuts both ways. A ruling confirming that IGRA claims can proceed against a federally regulated exchange would strengthen tribes nationwide, while an adverse ruling would be binding across Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. A denial of permission would return the case to the district court without an appellate statement on the merits.

A fragmented national picture

The Seventh Circuit is one of several courts weighing related questions, and the results so far have not been uniform. The Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in favor of two California tribes that blocked Kalshi and Robinhood from offering sports contracts on their lands, as we described in our coverage of the Blue Lake Rancheria decision. Other courts have reached different conclusions in cases involving state regulators, and our analysis of the Sixth Circuit split explains why those state-versus-exchange cases do not map neatly onto tribal claims. Tribal organizations have also asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, which we reported in our piece on the amicus request in Flaherty v. Kalshi.

Observers widely expect the issue to reach the Supreme Court eventually, though no timetable has been set. Each additional circuit that rules adds to the record the justices would consider, which is why an early Seventh Circuit decision, if the court agrees to hear the case, could carry weight beyond Wisconsin.

What to watch next

The first signal is whether the Seventh Circuit grants permission, and the Nation's response to the petition will be an early indicator of how it frames the issue. The second is whether the district court stays further proceedings while the petition is pending. The third is whether other pending tribal cases, including those brought by Blue Lake Rancheria and the Mescalero Apache Tribe, cite or diverge from any Seventh Circuit action.

Context on the underlying legal framework, including how IGRA defines Class III gaming and who may authorize it, is available in the TribalGaming.com Legal Guide. This article is based on the public docket and published reporting through October 28, 2026, and will be updated when the court acts on the petition.